So why are GMOs bad?
Its the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.

Other urls found in this thread:

they aren't, eat what you want, gfy

The technology isn't inherently bad, but it's own by a company that's a bit of a cunt.

Only retarded people think GMO is bad.

They aren't.

Cracks me up how progressives call conservatives anti-science, then buy into unsubstantiated nonsense like anti-GMO and anti-vax.

Most genetically modified plants are modified to increase pesticide resistance or to naturally create pesticides in the plants. You don't want to eat these foods.

There's nothing wrong with the technology, it just has not been used in a beneficial way for consumers.

There's also the issue of cross-pollination where other plants can inherit modified genes, which is usually unwanted.

It because you dont really know whats in there, you damn sheeple. *takes a puff of weed bought off some random chump*

Increases the risk of childhood autism and cancer


1. once outside it is hard to get rid of them again since they will reproduce outside the fields like every plant does
2. they are designed to be resistent to that pesticide the same company as the major gmos produces, which are more agressive than conventional ones which will lead to more resistant pests, which again will need more resistent plants for more agressive pesticides.
3. some of the gmo apparently caused organ failure
4. they push for no labeling policies for gmo so that the customer cant know and thus cant decide to not est gmo
5. the change in genes could cause anything. We could change things which will get fatal in years with us only knowing when its too late

There aaarre GENES in GMOs. Genes are bad for you! You know, those genes might just kill you by mutating your lungs and they end up being pig lungs!

I have read that on www.greenpartytruths.cuck.

They aren't

You literally cannot have an advanced space civilization without going full-blown GMO

Without it, you're stuck on this shithole forever (or at least until we nuke ourselves)

Because 75 years ago people weren't obese, alzheimers wasn't as common, autism was nearly non existent. Lactose intolerance in white people didn't exist and most other food allergies didnt exist. Sperm development is down in men and cancer in 1st world countries is ridiculously higher than 3rd world.

GMOs are fantastic. I would gladly pay more for a GMO version, so we should label it as a selling point.

>Most genetically modified plants are modified to increase pesticide resistance or to naturally create pesticides in the plants.
Link to the second claim. First one, yes, second one, no.

>it just has not been used in a beneficial way for consumers.
BS, there isn't a single case of a detrimental health case.

let me break it down for ya

> jew make seedless apples

> seedless apple takes over market

> only jew has the seeds

> jew sells the seeds for lots of money.

GMOs are a lot like fracking. With supervision and moderated intake they aren't bad. But long term we just don't have the studies to show the negative effects.

Trade secret bitch. Studies are illegal because it would hurt expected profits. Trust us it's fine.

>jew spends hundreds of millions of dollars making a seed that makes the food taste better, juicier, healthier, requires less pesticides, requires less space, requires less water

>other seeds still exist but people want jewseed because it's good and jew put a lot of money and work into it

>you can still go out and buy goyseed or make your own you lazy fuck


6. they are not proofen to produce more and thus useless for the risk.
7. they are not needed. The world produces enough toneat for everyone already. Even for a few billion people more. Its the distribution of the food that is falsy. In wealthy countries half the food gets theown away. If we could get to those who need it there wouldnt be a problem

jews have a monopoly over something, what else is new?

There's nothing inherently wrong with GMOs. Modified genes could in theory produce harmful things, but there's also plenty of naturally occurring genes that produce harmful things. If they're modified to be more resistant to pests or grow larger, that's fine.
Monsanto is being very Jewish about the whole thing and causing financial problems for people. But that's not specifically about GMOs, just another corporation being Jewish.
If you want to support local farmers instead of a big company, that's fine. But GMO food doesn't have negative health affects, so don't avoid it for that reason.

t. academi

>Most genetically modified plants are modified to increase pesticide resistance or to naturally create pesticides in the plants.
>Link to the second claim. First one, yes, second one, no.

What claim? Plant Incorporated Protectants are well known. Maybe you aren't considering them pesticides, idk.

Nigger, we are on the cusp of curing cancer and genetic diseases within the next 10-20 years.

CRISPR and CAS-9 will be able to reorganize our nucleotides sequences that carry theese diseases, and be able to rewire cancer cells to die and stay dead, instead of staying alive and multiplying.

If if the timeline of the medical world were compared to the invention of electronics, culminating at the current smart phone being equated to the cure for cancer, it'd look like this:

>nigger plays with kite and key in lightnin storm
>lightbulb invented
>alt current invented
>homes have power
>processor invented
>first "computer" (size of a walmart)
>data stored on tape
>data stored on floppy disk
>processor size shrinks
>first portable cellular telephone (size of a brick)

>Where we are right now in cancer cure

>internet invented
>smart phones (cure for cancer)

>mfw anti-GMO crowd forgets about the Lenape potato

This is nothing new. Conventional selective breeding techniques can result in unintended increases in naturally occurring toxins, it can be used to increase crop resistance to herbicides and pesticides, etc. More advanced genetic manipulation techniques just allows them to do all this more effectively.

GMO crops are tested for substantial equivalency to ensure that toxicity, nutrition, etc. are the same as the unmodified food. The irony is there's way more regulation and testing surrounding GMO food, even though new conventionally bred crops can just as easily be harmful to humans as well.

You do realize numerous non-GMO plants have naturally produced pesticides long before humans ever cultivated them, right? Glycoalkaloids in potatoes, for example...

You act like this is some Frankenstein-tier shit.

>Source: n/a

Seedless not even needed. Jews already make enhanced seed with patented genes. This seed isnt allowed to be kept and you have to buy new seed every year. Farmers who never bought the enhanced seed are finding out that there plants have the enhanced genes from proximity. Now they are no longer alowed to keep there seed and have to buy like everyone else.

They aren't they can't even produce fertile seeds so it's not like they could fuck up the rest of the environment

>Inserting already existing genes into other plants somehow makes them toxic/dangerous.

>sterilizes my crops
>not fucking up the environment

They are not directly bad.
But cultivating GMO means losing a lot of food diversity. They are very well suited for large scale production and tends to take over the market. Look for example in US, at lot in calories intakes from average American come from the same GMO specie of corn and the same GMO specie of soybean. (they are in a lot of product! looks how corn syrup is everywhere).

I think in a developed country, which should try to produce food of better quality and more diverse.
Therefore, I am against GMO.

>implying you know how an natural apple looks like
It ain't like that.

Remember the Irish potato famine? That's what happens when you become too dependent on any one crop.

>CRISPR and CAS-9 will be able to reorganize our nucleotides sequences that carry theese diseases

CRISPR and CAS-9 (that the same things) are not able to go efficiently into cells. And no, viral vector (that are used in labs) are not a viable thing for human (because they can be used only once before your body developed anti-body). Secondly, there are far away to be sufficient selective to have a therapeutic application, and maybe would never be!
Curing cancer while causing more cancer is a bit useless.

Yes! I totaly agree, we should maintain a food diversity.
And a lot of native plants can do even better than GMO in their native environment. GMO are just easier on large scale.
Except for a slightly lower food price, I don't see any advantages of GMO...

Dutch and Americans haven't seen a real apple in 100 years, since you made your apples extinct and replaced them with Disney apples. But that's not where it ends with your nonsense. Americans think chicken meat is yellow, it isn't. Americans paint every meat to be extra red. Your cheese ain't cheese, it's oil. Which is why you are so fat and sick.

GMOs are NOT bad.

The added pesticides that are now spray ON the product instead of around it before the GMO process is what is BAD.

I'm told that it's necessary to some degree in order to provide adequate nutrition to continue to support life as we know it while our planet continues to die and change. But it's very clearly a complicated issue that is being hidden behind corporate secrets, monopolies, profits, literally military mercenaries, etc.

When the powers that be lose the trust of the people, everybody loses.

We still have apple trees. They're just not used for food production.

In fact there's one just down the road and people just let the apples fall on the sidewalk and rot instead of picking them up and eating free food. It's sad. They taste amazing.

GMO and chemicals is same company. They force you to grow GMO and then they force you to spray it, then they force you to re-plant the trees every 20 years, since natural apple trees survive for 200 years without any spraying, while GMO trees survive 20 years if you spray them.

Apple trees and corn you have in USA been GMO modified decades ago. Corn isn't suppose to be sweet. If you see that no insect wants to eat your fruit or vegetables in kitchen it should probably be a sign it ain't natural.

If think the worst thing about them is that it allows big agricultural concerns like Monsanto to patent the genetically modified crops and gain an even bigger monopoly on selling them.

So why is asbestos bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~people, 1950

So why is Contergan bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~europeans, 1960

So why is smoking bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~people, 1980s

So why is leaving the cockpit door unlocked bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~pilots, 9/10/2001

So why is supporting islamist insurgents against russia and rearing anti imperialist sentiment in them bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~CIA, 1960s

So why is trying to coexist with other people in a nice multicultural and inclusive society bad?
It's the most worthless discussion of all time, it does no harm at all.
~UK, June 2006

etc etc


GMOs are not bad in and of themselves, it's just math kind of. What you do with GMO tech is what is scary, people don't separate the two. For example, you could put banana flavor into a strawberry, yum and harmless but this is not what GMO people do. GMO people put insecticide factories into corn and such.
Good: Things that kill insects might not kill you.
Bad: Insecticide is not good for you.
So there's that.


Trust me the real apples are tiny and full of insect holes. Just eat around that part.

My grandparents used to grow corn. I used to go pick it for dinner, and, yes, you had to sort out which ears were in good shape. It was a treat once a year when the sweet corn came around -- that's a mutation native to the Americas, and really surprised some people visiting from Europe who thought all corn was just animal feed.

You can wash off your veggies and should. You cannot wash the insides of the cells though. Dumbass.

>If you see that no insect wants to eat your fruit or vegetables in kitchen it should probably be a sign it ain't natural.

If you have enough insects in your kitchen to be observing which foods they like, you are a dirty motherfucker

I never ate a GMO fruit that tasted anywhere as good as natural ones of my own trees or relatives, since it's not just that it's GMO, it's also the fact it didn't seen enough sun. They don't allow natural types to be sold in store, since they don't even allow them to be registered. If you want to grow some 15th century grapes you have to pay like 1000 euro per month so they recognize it as a type, since they really don't want to register more than 15 types of grapes, when in fact thousands of them exist. It's kind of funny, since everybody here knows somebody with grapes or vineyard and you will never find such old type grapes in supermarket, like you can't buy natural strawberries in store.

The insects eat them when they're in the field. Try even a small garden in your back yard and pretty soon you'll be ready to spray the insects, shoot the animals, gas the birds, and damn the weeds to eternal hellfire.

He's referring to BT cotton that produces a substance that turns to a poison in an alkali digestive system.

Insects have alkali digestive systems.

I don't worry about it since my digestive system is acidic. Oh, and I don't eat cotton alfredo. .

I open door and wasps or flies will try to get to fruit. I leave natural tomato on shelves, some insect will try to get it, will get rotten. I leave store tomato on table, nothing wants to touch it, doesn't gets rotten, not even after 3 days.

Have to agree with krautbro we really want to fuck around with this stuff unless 100% sure?

The seedless stuff concerns me the most.

>technological advancement in every other field
>technological advancement in food

Really makes me think.

Huh thats weird i have some heirloom tomato plants for my resturant i grow and they last around 3-4 days and there non gmo/organic

Natural things are made in such a way that when it falls from tree on ground it's suppose to get rotten, since that's how bacteria and soil wants it. Maybe not even bacteria wants to eat supermarket tomatoes and strawberries. Since natural strawberries change color in matter of hours, not days, they get rotten on next day, while store strawberries, it's like not even bacteria wants to eat that, it lasts for days.

Yeah, but usually you'd pick something when it's ripe or almost ripe, not when it's over-ripe and about ready to drop. Should last a few days before spoiling.

They don't allow the fruit to ripen either. To sell fruit it has to age in transit to the store instead of on the tree. I have a special kind of lemon tree in my front yard called a Meyer Lemon, some of the lemons are on the tree for a year, look very orange, and taste sweet and sour.

I can tell you that mushrooms, strawberries, cherries and such similar fragile things won't last without fridge, there are some exceptions, but natural strawberries aren't such an exception. When they fall off and are ripe, their seed is suppose to go to soil, not stand around intact. With mushrooms i know only 1 type that doesn't changes color after hours on open and that type is black to begin with, so i wouldn't know if it's bad by just looking at it, but i would probably feel and taste it.

If it's not ripe then how is it red? And then the question is if it isn't ripe, how can it even be full of vitamins? Bananas are basically get ripen with gas, they are picked green. But there are many way to make it look ripe and colorful.

It depends on how the food is modified, durrrrr.

Yeah, cherries spoil quickly. I've never done mushrooms.

>Americans think chicken meat is yellow
Where the fuck did you get that idea?

It's just that some Americans might think chicken here is too white.